Here is the text of this important conversation:

“Each entity has its own equivalent of physical senses, but you can't say you experience them the same, yet you get glimpses of the sensate items of entities just one level of complexity away--both more and less. And get ready for this: You experience all other sensory input of all levels, but don't understand so you don't perceive.

[Elissa then mused: ‘You often say that if such and such were true, then it wouldn't be logical …’]

“When I speak of logic, I speak not of Aristotelian nor even anyone else, but in terms of ‘does the possibility allow for the spiritual understanding of the whole which I paint. Does my reduction to physical terms remain consistent or not. The important word there is ‘reduction.’ Yes, I speak in terms which you can understand and apply or else what's the point of all of this. Remember none of this is meant to be taken literally, but symbolically. So, it appears literally true in your existence, but that is a true illusion. As opposed to a false illusion.

“A false illusion if applied to all existence would either deny all existence or reduce it to absurdity without meaning. True illusion always points to higher, more inclusive, more universal understandings. I could tell you things in ways that make sense at other levels but which don't at yours and those would be false reductions. If it is not universally true, don't peddle it as such …”